Critic of the ontological argument.

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Critic of the ontological argument.

Post #1

Post by Bubuche87 »

Hello everybody. This is my first post on this forum.

For weeks (months?) I have been interested in the ontological argument, especially the S5 version. Not because I find it strong, but because I find it incredibly weak and enjoy finding new ways to take it down.

Now, most of the time I only find things already found. But this time I searched and it seems that this critic hasn't been formulated yet.
There is a reason why: compared to other attacks it has a flaw. But we'll talk about that later

So, my critic goes against the possible worlds themselves.

By definition, for something to be possible, it has to exist in a possible world.
Often we see theist saying "A is a necessary precondition of B", but it's not the case.

Here, by definition, existing in a possible world is a necessary precondition for something to be possible.

Now, let's take a possible world X.
Is X possible?
I precise that it's not enough to have "possible" in your name to be possible.

Is X possible? For X to be possible, it has to exist in a possible world. Let's call that possible world X2.
Is X2 possible? For X2 to be possible, it has to exist in a possible world. Let's call that world X3.

Now here is the flaw: one may accept infinite regress as fine. It's not usually the case for theists though, so the argument may still work against them.

We can then accept an infinite regress, or accept that there is a world, Xn, that exist and is impossible. ( While being a possible world, but this is not a contradiction because it's only a name ).

I think I could go further, but if I manage to introduce an impossible yet existing object in their ontology, it's already a victory.

( I precise that English is not my mother's tongue, an I apologize for the mistakes. I am also writing on an Android, which doesn't help )

Is this critic valid ? I think it could be improved, but how does it stand, as a first draft ?

Thanks for reading and (late) happy new year.

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Critic of the ontological argument.

Post #2

Post by Bubuche87 »

There is a little addendum.
Once again, it's far from perfect and should be improved and formalized.

It's based on that: can the existence of something necessary depends/relies on the existence of something contingent ?
It seems no.

But if it is the case, then possible worlds can't ground the existence of a necessary being without being themselves necessary.

Let's consider a possible world P.
P is necessary ( because what I just explained ).
If P is possible, because it is also necessary, it exists in all possible worlds, including P.

P exists _in_ P, alongside other things P may contain .
Here, even mathematically it starts to be problematic to have this kind of construct ( and could eventually lead to paradoxes). We don't allow sets containing themselves for a reason.

And the solution to that is also the solution to the problem raised in the first message: if no possible world is possible, then it can be necessary without existing in all possible worlds.
Here again the solution seems to be the acknowledgement the possible worlds are, in fact, impossible.

Which should overthrow the whole modality thing if taken literally. And would lead to a plethora of impossibilities otherwise (that are now their own thing, being impossible means now nothing more or less than being red or tall etc).

Note that if the actual world is a possible world, this also applies to it.
And if the actual world is NOT a possible world, then god necessity AND existence in all-possible-world doesn't imply the existence of god in this world ( because it's no longer a possible world ).

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Critic of the ontological argument.

Post #3

Post by Purple Knight »

I accept infinite regress and it's the reason I do not think the ontological argument proves that there is a God in this universe.

One of the foundations of the ontological argument is that a being that great can burst universe barriers and exist in all universes.

Yes he can burst the barriers. However.

For each bubble he pops, there is another one behind it that he didn't pop. This is how infinite possibilities works.

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Critic of the ontological argument.

Post #4

Post by Bubuche87 »

I think you didn't understand my comment. It's merely about god, much more about the possible worlds themselves.

However I did revise my judgement a bit, but it's only getting worse: you can in fact accept infinite regress OR circular grounding ( for lack of a better term ).
You still cannot have foundationalism.

For a PW to be possible, it has to exist in a PW, by definition. So either you have an infinite regress of PW, or at some point you have a circle: PWa contains PWb, that contains PWc ... That contains PWa.
Then every PW is contained in a PW, but at what cost ! We now have elements containing themselves. At this point we need a definition for "contain" ( or "in", in the original formulation) because it sounds like an hollow word.

The second message is a slightly different approach, because it tackles with the contingency argument, and shows that this argument is incompatible with the modal argument ( or with modal logic in general )

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Critic of the ontological argument.

Post #5

Post by Bubuche87 »

( I hope it's not considered spamming )

When I started working on that it was for a reason.
Usually when you discuss about this argument you quickly encounters somebody saying "iff it's possible it exists in a possible world".

To which I tend to answer "iff it's impossible, it exists in an impossible world".

( And you could extend that with "iff it's red it exists in a red world" or "iff it's tasty and wiggle Sunday morning it exists in a tasty an wiggling in the morning world" ).

Now, theists don't accept that. They say that impossible worlds can't exists. Something impossible can't exist.

(Surprisingly enough I tend to agree:
- PW are possible, they don't entail contradictions and they exist.
- IW are impossible, they do entail contradictions and they don't exist ... And yet still exist, because, eh, they entail contradictions so they can do both )

This argument tries to break this affirmation that something impossible can't exist.

( Also, I usually build a counter to the ontological argument for god based on that IW concept:
I define X as
1/ ultra-necessary, i.e if it exists in a world, it exists in all world
2/ anti christian-god ( if it exists in a world the christian god doesn't exist in this world )

Now, is X possible?
If yes, X exist in possible world.
If X exists in a possible world, X exists in a world.
If X exists in a world it exists in all worlds.
If X exists in all worlds it exists in all possible worlds AND in our world.
So X is actual and God doesn't exist in any possible world and is therefore impossible (and not actual ).

If no ( e.g. if X is impossible ), X exists in an impossible world.
If X exists in an impossible world X exists in a world
If X exists in a world it exists in all worlds.
If X exists in all worlds it exists in all possible worlds AND in our world.
So X is actual and God doesn't exist in any possible world and is therefore impossible (and not actual).

Because X is either possible or impossible ( true dichotomy) then God is impossible (and not actual).

God is impossible ( and not actual )
)

Post Reply